North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Google wants to be your Internet
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 08:33:26 +0800 Adrian Chadd <adrian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 21, 2007, Charlie Allom wrote: > > > > This is a pure example of a problem from the operational front which can > > > be floated to research and the industry, with smarter solutions than port > > > blocking and QoS. > > > > This is what I am interested/scared by. > > Its not that hard a problem to get on top of. Caching, unfortunately, continues > to be viewed as anaethma by ISP network operators in the US. Strangely enough > the caching technologies aren't a problem with the content -delivery- people. > > > I've had a few ISPs out here in Australia indicate interest in a cache that > could do the normal stuff (http, rtsp, wma) and some of the p2p stuff (bittorrent > especially) with a smattering of QoS/shaping/control - but not cost upwards of > USD$100,000 a box. Lots of interest, no commitment. > I think it is probably because to build caching infrastructure that is high performance and has enough high availability to make a difference is either non-trivial or non-cheap. If it comes down to introducing something new (new software / hardware, new concepts, new complexity, new support skills, another thing that can break etc.) verses just growing something you already have, already manage and have since day one as an ISP - additional routers and/or higher capacity links - then growing the network wins when the $ amount is the same because it is simpler and easier. > It doesn't help (at least in Australia) where the wholesale model of ADSL isn't > content-replication-friendly: we have to buy ATM or ethernet pipes to upstreams > and then receive each session via L2TP. Fine from an aggregation point of view, > but missing the true usefuless of content replication and caching - right at > the point where your customers connect in. > I think if even "pure" networking people (i.e. those that just focus on shifting IP packets around) are accepting of that situation, when they also believe in keeping traffic local, indicates that it is probably more of an economic rather than a technical reason why that is still happening. Inter-ISP peering at the exchange (C.O) would be the ideal, however it seems that there isn't enough inter-customer (per-ISP or between ISP) bandwidth consumption at each exchange to justify the additional financial and complexity costs to do it. Inter-customer traffic forwarding is usually happening at the next level up in the hierarchy - at the regional / city level, which is probably at this time the most economic level to do it. > (Disclaimer: I'm one of the Squid developers. I'm getting an increasing amount > of interest from CDN/content origination players but none from ISPs. I'd love > to know why ISPs don't view caching as a viable option in today's world and > what we could to do make it easier for y'all.) > Maybe that really means your customers (i.e. people who most benefit from your software) are really the content distributors not ISPs anymore. While the distinction might seem somewhat minor, I think ISPs generally tend to have more of a view point of "where is this traffic wanting or probably going to go, and how to do we build infrastructure to get it there", and less of a "what is this traffic" view. In other words, ISPs tend to be more focused on trying to optimise for all types of traffic rather than one or a select few particular types, because what the customer does with the bandwidth they purchase is up to the customer themselves. If you spend time optimising for one type of traffic you're either neglecting or negatively impacting another type. Spending time on general optimisations that benefit all types of traffic is usually the better way to spend time. I think one of the reasons for ISP interest in the "p2p problem" could be because it is reducing the normal benefit-to-cost ratio of general traffic optimsation. Restoring the regular benefit-to-cost ratio of general traffic optimsation is probably the fundamental goal of solving the "p2p problem". My suggestion to you as a squid developer would be focus on caching, or more generally, localising of P2P traffic. It doesn't seem that the P2P application developers are doing it, maybe because they don't care because it doesn't directly impact them, or maybe because they don't know how to. If squid could provide a traffic localising solution which is just another traffic sink or source (e.g. a server) to an ISP, rather than something that requires enabling knobs on the network infrastructure for special handling or requires special traffic engineering for it to work, I'd think you'd get quite a bit of interest. Just my 2c. Regards, Mark. -- "Sheep are slow and tasty, and therefore must remain constantly alert." - Bruce Schneier, "Beyond Fear"